And that’s when I experienced something so rare for a bibliophile I had to talk about it here. I liked the movie better than the book. I thought I might, I said when I reviewed The Invention of Hugo Cabret that I felt like cinema might be the better venue for a story about cinema, and it was! Hugo was stunningly gorgeous, the colors were beautiful and rich in gold, brown, and steel hues that made the blues and greens and reds really stand out when they appeared. The story was charming, I actually liked the ways that they changed the story (like lack of Hugo’s injury) better, and while the movie wasn’t as detailed as the book, I felt that there was more of an investment in the story.
The movie wasn’t without its flaws. I don’t like shots obviously built for 3D, but they weren’t rampant. I was somewhat annoyed by the whole 'let's talk in British accents because this is a foreign location' thing when the movie took place in France. Also one of my complaints about The Invention of Hugo Cabret was the lack of character depth. This didn’t really improve in Hugo, in fact, I actively disliked Asa Butterfield’s portrayal of Hugo Cabret, finding him disingenuous and whiny. I didn’t particularly love Chloe Moretz in this role either, attempting to play the sweet little girl we all know she isn’t. It didn’t really work for me, but it also wasn’t so glaring that it ruined the movie.
You know what I did love about the cast? People, Hugo was basically a Harry Potter minor character reunion! Uncle Dursley, Narcissa Malfoy, Madame Maxime, and I did spend some time online after seeing the smush-faced Persian in Christopher Lee’s bookstore trying to determine if this was Crackerjacks, the cat who played Crookshanks. Alas, this could not be determined.
In the end, I’m putting Hugo in that very rare category of movies I prefer to books. Let me know what you thought! Did you enjoy Hugo more than The Invention of Hugo Cabret?